The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Criticism is a part of writing, and though it can be constructive, it's also exhausting at times. I can spend a long while writing a piece I think is particularly good, only to have it torn apart online by savage commenters who seem bent on crushing my very soul. Such instances are why these last two weeks have been surprisingly refreshing.

Forum threads, comments, tweets and emails have been full of tremendous support and kind words for myself and the other Forbes gaming contributors, due to our coverage of the Mass Effect 3 controversy. So much so, the internet has even spawned images like this one, which is both humorous and heartwarming, as it's always nice to be recognized for your work, and it really does mean a lot to us as writers.

But parts of the conversation have turned to a subject that's bothered me for a while now. While I appreciate the comments that our pieces are honest, objective and well-written, I see many saying that such things are rare to see because all the other mainstream gaming journalism sites are "beholden" to game companies for ad dollars, free games and such. Therefore, unbiased gaming journalism is all but nonexistent.

I wrote about a conspiracy theory yesterday which has the *real* ending of Mass Effect 3 explained by a series of blog posts and YouTube videos that turn it into something else more intelligent. It's kind of a stretch in parts, but it's completely rational compared to another gaming conspiracy, that all journalists are in the pockets of EA, Activision and the other major corporations, and are therefore capable of producing unbiased pieces.

Such thinking was brought up when many of the big sites, Kotaku, G4, IGN and so on began publishing pieces or writing tweets that were mocking fans for wanting a new ending to Mass Effect 3. Meanwhile, my initial post suggested that if Bioware didn't want to lose the good will of its fans, a valuable, fast-shrinking commodity, changing or updating the ending would be good for both fans and the brand. In a follow-up piece, I made a simple statement that "fan service is good business." My pieces were well received by the community while theirs were not.

But does that make Kotaku, G4, IGN and other agents of EA? Were they really influenced to defend the ending of the game and lambast those who questioned it? No. Such behavior might make them look like jerks in many people's eyes, as it's never wise to outright mock your readership, but it hardly makes them servants of the corporations. I honestly believe many of them just didn't care. They either didn't see what all the fuss was about, or really do believe that "art" is sacred, and should never be changed for an audience.

I'm a freelancer for Forbes, and have only recently gotten my start in the gaming industry a few years ago . As such, I am not an entrenched figure on the scene, and only rarely do I receive products or press invitations from companies, as I don't yet know all the right PR people. I never get advance review copies of games.

Nope, I had to pay for this.

Perhaps it makes me more passionate about a title when I've spent $60 of my own money on it, or if it's a series that has cost me over $200 to date. But the fact remains that if EA had shipped me a free early review copy, none of what I said would have changed. I think it's a bit disingenuous if you truly believe that the industry as a whole is corrupted to a degree where ads and review copies are really changing people's opinions and review scores.

Many are upset with game critics for giving Mass Effect 3 high review marks, and it's another avenue of criticism that I think is unfair. If a game is absolutely astonishing for twenty nine hours and fifty five minutes of its 30 hour runtime, does it deserve to be given a low score because the last few minutes are such a letdown? You could argue that, if you believe the ending negates your enjoyment of the entire game, but I think the stronger case is that the game on the whole is a pretty stunning accomplishment, even if the ball is dropped through the floor in the closing moments.

I'm not saying that journalistic bias or corporate influence never happens in the industry. We all know the famous story of the Gamespot editor who was fired because of a low score given to a crappy game whose publishers were in league with the site owners. And there have been a handful of threats of sites losing privileges like free games or press invites based on certain stories. But you have to admit that these instances are quite rare, especially considering the massive amount of gaming articles that go to print across thousands of sites every day. And with writers who love to talk as much as they do, if there really was a big conspiracy or scandal, don't you think someone would have blown the whistle by now?

But if there's a perceived problem, there is usually an actual problem behind it. It just might not be the one you think. The main issue I think gaming journalism is suffering from right now is fatigue. Some of the veterans in the industry have been doing this so long, they've forgotten what it's like to be a fan, which often results in a very strong and obvious disconnect with their readers. At many sites, it seems that the writers are at times purposefully picking fights with their audience now, either through baiting or just poor attempts at trying to have "attitude." It's strange and sad to see, and is a problem that needs to be addressed at many of these places.